deckproof-mcp

Validate a .pptx against the OOXML spec

pptx_validate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate .pptx conformance to OOXML/ECMA-376 and identify issues like dangling relationships, missing ID-list registrations, and content-type gaps that cause silent failures in strict readers.

Instructions

Check an existing .pptx file's structural conformance to the OOXML/ECMA-376 PresentationML spec: dangling relationships, missing presentation ID-list registrations (the class of bug that makes files silently fail in strict readers like Apple Keynote), and content-type completeness. Works on any .pptx, regardless of what tool created it. Returns valid: true only if there are zero error-severity violations.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "pptx_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`valid`	Yes
`violations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond those: it returns valid:true only with zero error-severity violations, targets specific bug classes, and promises cross-tool compatibility. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: purpose, scope, and return semantics. It is detailed without being bloated or redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate the full return shape. It covers what is validated, the strictness standard, the files it applies to, and the validity condition. Combined with the read-only/idempotent annotations and schema-documented parameters, nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not discuss the source parameter or the path/base64 distinction, but the input schema itself provides clear descriptions for both fields. The schema carries the parameter-semantics burden, so the description adds little beyond what an agent already sees in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Check an existing .pptx file's structural conformance') and identifies the exact standard (OOXML/ECMA-376 PresentationML). It lists concrete violation classes, distinguishes validation from creation/repair/audit siblings, and clarifies the success condition, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever an existing .pptx needs conformance checking, and it explicitly says it works on any .pptx regardless of origin. However, it never names sibling tools like pptx_audit or pptx_repair, nor states when to choose validation over auditing or repair, leaving some routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server